In response to COP28 President Al Jaber’s science-denying comments at the She Changes Climate Event, as reported by The Guardian, Romain Ioualalen, Oil Change International’s Global Policy lead, said:
“COP28 President Al Jaber’s science-denying statements are alarming and raise deep concerns about the Presidency’s capacity to lead the UN climate talks, at a time when leadership and a clear vision are most needed. Of course, denying science has been part of the fossil fuel industry’s playbook for decades. But science is not up for debate: we must phase out fossil fuels to have a livable planet.
“The science is clear. Not only do fossil fuels need to be phased out, but the phaseout needs to start now. The latest reports from the IEA and the IPCC show that maintaining a 50% chance of limiting global warming to 1.5°C requires an immediate end to investments in new oil, gas, and coal production and hazardous liquid fossil gas infrastructure.
“Instead of casting doubt on climate science, we expect the COP28 president to facilitate an outcome on a full, fast, fair, and funded phaseout of fossil fuels at COP28. Over 100 countries have now called for a phase out of fossil fuels and science is clear that limiting warming to 1.5°C without relying massively on dangerous technological distractions such as CCS requires eliminating fossil fuels from the global economy.”
Craig Bennett says the way recent and current older generations have allowed environmental degradation will be viewed harshly by people in the future who will have to live with consequences that, in many cases, will be increasingly devastating. Image: A1Cafel Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic via wikimedia.
Romain Ioualalen, Global Policy Manager at Oil Change International said:
“It is positive to see this COP28 presidency and the IEA reflect the growing consensus that we need urgent action to rein in fossil fuel production and use. As COP28 negotiations start, countries must agree to end fossil fuel expansion, the only way to see fossil fuels decline significantly this decade, and for a full phase out of fossil fuels production and use. Distant promises and voluntary pledges are not enough, we need to see immediate action.
“The phase out will not happen on its own, even with growth in renewable energy. Without a strong agreement at COP28 that gets reflected in national policies, fossil fuels will not decline at the speed and scale necessary to limit temperature rise to 1.5°C.
“We deeply regret the inclusion of the fossil fuel industry’s favorite distractions, CCS and hydrogen, in this document and we urge parties to oppose any attempts to legitimize these failed technologies in a COP decision”.
David Tong, Global Industry Manager at Oil Change International said:
“Fatih Birol and the IEA reconfirmed this year that to limit global warming to 1.5ºC, there is no room for any new oil and gas expansion beyond existing fields and mines. To confront the climate crisis we need a full, fast, fair, and funded phase out of oil, gas, and coal.
“Oil Change International data show no big oil and gas company comes even close to aligning its business model with the Paris Agreement. Fossil fuel producers will not phase themselves out. The Big Oil and Gas business model cannot be reformed. Its foundation is destruction – of communities, of ecosystems, and all our futures. Cutting oil and gas companies’ operational emissions will achieve a maximum of 20% reduction in their total emissions. Governments must act to phase out the destructive fossil fuel industry and unlock the transition to nature-positive, community-owned, renewable energy.”
Greenpeace activists display a billboard during a protest outside Shell headquarters on July 27, 2023 in London. (Photo: Handout/Chris J. Ratcliffe for Greenpeace via Getty Images)
Pakistani flood victims wade through floodwaters after monsoon rains in Matiari, Sindh province, Pakistan on August 29, 2022. (Photo: Shakeel Ahmad/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)
The United States’ contribution of $17.5 million, in particular, was denounced as “embarrassing” for the wealthiest country in the world.
International campaigners who for years have demanded a global “loss and damage” fund to help developing countries confront the climate emergency were encouraged on Thursday as the 28th United Nations Climate Change Conference began with an agreement to make the fund operational—but said the details of the deal made clear that wealthy countries are still largely abandoning communities that have contributed the least fossil fuel emissions, only to suffer the worst climate injustices.
A recent study from the University of Delaware showed that “the unweighted percentage of global GDP lost” due to climate impacts such as long-lasting drought, catastrophic flooding, and wildfires is estimated at 1.8%, or about $1.5 trillion, and low- and middle-income countries “have experienced $2.1 trillion in produced capital losses due to climate change.”
To meet the need, developing countries have said they already require about $400 billion annually in a loss and damage fund that could help governments rebuild communities, restore crucial wildlife habitats, or relocate people who have been displaced by the climate emergency—so advocates on Thursday were left wondering why the fund agreed upon at COP28 was expected to provide only about $100 billion per year by 2030.
The shortfall threatened to ensure the loss and damage fund will remain “an empty promise,” said Fanny Petitbon, head of advocacy for Care France.
“We hope the agreement will result in rapid delivery of support for communities on the frontlines of the climate crisis,” said Petitbon. “However, it has many shortcomings. It enables historical emitters to evade their responsibility. It also fails to establish the scale of finance needed and ensure that the fund is anchored in human rights principles.”
“We urgently call on all governments who are most responsible for the climate emergency and have the capacity to contribute to announce significant pledges in the form of grants,” she added. “Historical emitters must lead the way.”
The United States, the largest historical contributor of the planet-heating emissions that scientists agree are fueling the climate crisis, has objected to tying loss and damage funding to each wealthy nation’s emissions—perhaps partially explaining why the Biden administration pledged only $17.5 million to the fund.
Yes, "strong decisions & ambitious action," which is why the US pledged a whopping $17.5 million to the Loss & Damage Fund. If pledges go to Africa alone (1.4 billion people) the US pledge would be about $0.01 per African. Germany pledged $100m, the UK $50, Japan $10m. #Shamelesshttps://t.co/dkjMP82rE8
Such contributions are “a drop in the ocean compared to the scale of the need they are to address,” said Mohamed Adow, director of Power Shift Africa.
“In particular, the amount announced by the U.S. is embarrassing for President [Joe] Biden and [Special Presidential Climate Envoy] John Kerry,” said Adow. “It just shows how this must be just the start.”
Campaigners also objected to the agreement’s stipulation that the World Bank will host the fund for the first four years—a demand that had been made by the U.S. and other wealthy countries—with voluntary payments from powerful governments that will be “invited,” not required, to contribute.
“Although rules have been agreed regarding how the fund will operate there are no hard deadlines, no targets, and countries are not obligated to pay into it, despite the whole point being for rich, high-polluting nations to support vulnerable communities who have suffered from climate impacts,” said Adow.
“The most pressing issue now is to get money flowing into the fund and to the people that need it,” he added. “The pledged funds must not just be repackaged commitments. We need new money, in the form of grants, not loans, otherwise it will just pile more debt onto some of the poorest countries in the world, defeating the point of a fund designed to improve lives.”
The United Arab Emirates, which is hosting COP28, pledged $100 million to the fund, a sum that was matched by Germany. The United Kingdom committed to contributing 60 million British pounds, or about $75 million, while Japan pledged $10 billion. The U.S. also said it would provide $4.5 million to the Pacific Resilience Facility, which will offer loss and damage funding to Pacific Island nations, and $2.5 million for the Santiago Network, which will provide technical support to developing countries.
Izzie McIntosh, climate campaign manager at U.K.-based Global Justice Now, called the creation of the global loss and damage fund was called a “welcome, yet long overdue, step forward for our climate,” and one that “reflects the utter devastation caused by climate change in the global south, and the need for rich countries to pay what they owe for their role in it.”
Rich countries, however, “have weakened the commitment they made to climate justice by insisting on the World Bank as interim host,” added McIntosh. “This decision risks both excluding countries due to its outdated rules and deepening the debt crisis if support is provided through loans, not grants. If loss and damage funding is to be truly impactful, it must be funded and designed adequately, or risk being all talk and no action.”
At COP27 in Egypt one year ago, noted Christian Aid global advocacy lead Mariana Paoli, policymakers did not even place the loss and damage fund on the agenda.
“It’s a testament to the determination of developing country negotiators that we now already have the fund agreed and established,” she said. “It’s now vital we see the fund filled. People who have contributed the least to the climate crisis are already suffering climate losses and damages. The longer they are forced to wait for financial support to cover these costs, the greater the injustice.”
Before COP28 wraps up on December 12, Paoli added, campaigners are hoping they will “see significant new and additional pledges of money to the loss and damage fund, and not just repackaged climate finance that has already been committed.”
A fully funded, impactful loss and damage fund must be paired with a commitment by countries to end fossil fuel expansion, added Romain Ioualalen, global policy manager at Oil Change International, with rich countries “redirecting trillions in fossil industry handouts to triple renewable energy and double energy efficiency.”
“We have had enough delays,” said Ioualalen, “and this must happen now to secure a livable future.”
In reaction to today’s announcement about the historic establishment of the United Nation’s loss and damage fund, David Tong, Global Industry Campaign Manager, Oil Change International, said:
“Unprecedented, countries finalized the creation of a fund to compensate countries for loss and damage caused by the climate crisis on the first day of the UN Climate Change Conference.
“So far, governments’ contributions to the loss and damage fund are dwarfed by their approximately USD 200 billion in planned subsidies for carbon capture and storage (CCS). Subsidies for CCS are subsidies for fossil fuels, because most captured carbon is used to produce more oil and gas. Instead of paying their fair share to clean up their mess, rich polluting countries are offering a lifeline to the fossil fuel industry in the form of billions in handouts for CCS, fueling more loss and damage.
“For this COP to be a success, the negotiators must focus on securing an agreement to massively scale up renewable energy, end all new fossil fuel expansion, and commit to a fast, fair, full, and funded phase out of all fossil fuels”
Governments have spent over $20 billion – and are planning up to $200 billion more – of public money on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), providing a lifeline for the fossil fuel industry.
The majority of CCS is used to expand fossil fuel extraction. 79% of the world’s CCS operating capacity sends captured CO2 to produce more oil (via Enhanced Oil Recovery)
Many of the largest projects in the world operate far below their stated capacity. They are designed only to capture a fraction of the emissions of the plant they serve.
Just Stop Oil protesting in London 6 December 2022.
Freshly painted banners for the ‘People vs. Fossil Fuels’ protests on October 11-15, 2023 are seen outside the White House in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Josh Yoder/Look Loud )
“While the IRA was touted as the ‘largest investment in climate and energy in American history,’ it could turn out to be a failure if Biden doesn’t also take bold action on fossil fuels,” said Oil Change International.
The 2022 law heralded as U.S. President Biden’s key climate achievement may support an expansion of clean energy, but a new analysis out Monday demonstrates how the Inflation Reduction Act leaves the fossil fuel industry with vast opportunities to extract more oil and gas and continue boosting its record-breaking profits at the expense of frontline communities.
The report, said Oil Change International (OCI) as it released the new findings, proves that the Biden administration can’t rely on the IRA to demonstrate its commitment to the emissions reduction that scientists agree is needed to mitigate the climate crisis.
“The model projects that despite the IRA’s investment in renewable energy, electric vehicles, and batteries, the United States could still miss its Paris Agreement goal of reducing U.S. emissions by 50 to 52% below 2005 levels by 2030,” reads the report, noting that as the world’s largest historical emitter of fossil fuel emissions, the U.S. has a responsibility to “cut its emissions faster than the global average.”
The group’s model projects that domestic fossil gas demand in the U.S. will decline by 16% by 2035, yet production is expected to rise by 7%. Petroleum demand is expected to decline by 20%, yet production will rise by 13%.
“The gap between production and demand is filled by surging exports,” explained OCI. “Gas exports are projected to double by 2035, while oil and petroleum product exports rise 23%.”
Wind and solar power are expected to replace gas domestically, added the organization, but the positive effects of the decline in gas demand in the U.S. are “tempered by an increase in gas consumption within the oil and gas industry itself.”
The “energy-hungry” liquefied natural gas (LNG) export sector will essentially cancel out progress made by surging wind and solar power in the U.S., said OCI, with gas consumption by LNG export plants growing 140% by 2035.
“The Biden administration touts the Inflation Reduction Act as a centerpiece of its achievements on climate,” said Collin Rees, U.S. campaign manager for OCI. “In reality, the bill leaves a massive escape hatch for the fossil fuel industry to continue business as usual.”
Rhodium’s modeling projects that the U.S. will miss its targeted emissions reduction for 2030 by 16-18 percentage points if the Biden administration relies on the IRA and its investments in technological fixes like carbon capture and storage and fossil hydrogen production while allowing continued investments in oil and gas exports.
“While the IRA was touted as the ‘largest investment in climate and energy in American history,’ it could turn out to be a failure if Biden doesn’t also take bold action on fossil fuels,” said OCI in a statement. “As the world gathers for COP28, Biden still has a chance to be the climate leader he claims he is by making a commitment to phasing out fossil fuels.”
The phase-out of all oil and gas production in the U.S. is widely recognized as necessary by energy and climate experts, and has long been demanded by advocates for frontline communities, which bear a disproportionate public health burden due to the strong links between fossil fuel extraction, storage, and transport and harms including respiratory illnesses, cardiovascular disease, and poor outcomes for pregnant people and infants.
Boosting fossil fuel production and exports “while exacerbating pollution in environmental justice communities,” said OCI, is a “deadly combination.”
7/ This deadly combo — boosting fossil fuel production + export while exacerbating pollution in EJ communities — makes a mockery of the IRA’s “climate bill” label + Biden’s claims of U.S. “climate leadership.” #EndFossilFuels
Roishetta Sibley Ozane, founder of the Vessel Project of Louisiana, said Biden’s approval of projects like the Willow oil drilling initiative in Alaska, nearly $2 billion for publicly financed fossil fuel projects abroad, and his support for the Mountain Valley Pipeline, among other pollution-causing infrastructure, has shown frontline communities that the president’s campaign promises regarding environmental justice were “nothing but a smokescreen.”
“We supported [President Joe] Biden for change, not to deal with deadly decisions made without us at the table,” said Ozane. “The fight against climate disaster is collective, and the United States cannot preach about caring for communities while exporting pollution globally.”
The pollution impacts of continued fossil fuel production and exports will be “disproportionately borne by Black, Brown, Indigenous, and poor communities—specifically in Appalachia, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Permian Basin of Texas and New Mexico,” said OCI.
To align with Biden’s stated climate goals, the group said, the president’s efforts must go far beyond the IRA and include a phase-out of oil and gas exports, an end to fossil fuel leasing on federal lands, and a halt to all approvals for new fossil fuel infrastructure.
“At COP28 the spotlight will be on our collective effort to end the fossil fuel era,” said Rees. “Will the United States deliver, or will Biden’s climate legacy be one of disastrous oil and gas expansion and failure to adequately tackle the climate crisis?”
